I don't think you understand the situation in this case. The person very clearly knew his phone was believed to have evidence of a crime. He then destroyed the evidence on the phone. This is one of the most clear cases of destruction of evidence there is. The only hope he has is to use the fact that he was denied his lawyer.

Now to show you are moving the goal posts, go back to one of your previous posts and read "Had a crime been charged when the search was undertaken?" and another one "how are you supposed to know when your own property is evidence and when it's not, when you've committed no crime?"

You clearly were trying to make a claim that a crime needs to be charged to be destruction of evidence.

You are guilty of committing a crime regardless if you are found guilty. If I murder somebody and I am not found guilty in a court would you say I am not guilty of committing the crime of murder?

I'm not going to address anything else since it is a complete waste of time discussing this with you.